>
> First off, vinyl has a greater dynamic range (75db) and frequency response
7
> Hz to 25kHz resulting in that more detailed, nuanced and "warm" sound.
This
> is probably more noticable on a large or hi fi sound system that can
> reproduce near the full frequency range.
Actually, that's not true. A CD has a hypothetical dynamic range up around
96 db, which is a damn site more than a vinyl record.
As for frequency response, the human ear can only hear from about 20 cycles
per second up to about 20,000 (that's a little kid who's never listened to
any music on headphones.... all the tossers on *this* list, like me, would
be lucky to hear anything much above 18kHz.) I'll wager CD's have a much
flatter frequency response across the dynamic range as well.
>
> [OT: One of the brilliant things about old blue note records and CD
releases
> is that they were mastered to two track tape! So when you hear the CDs
there
> is no remastering...its just as recorded. one of the first label sounds to
> emphasize the drums & hi-hat properly]
Well, if it's so great, how come (hardly) anyone does it that way anymore?
My Rhodes piano is great, too, but I can see why they don't make 'em
anymore.
About the only guy I know of doing direct to 2 track live recordings is Tom
Jung of DMP Recordings, and those are direct to 2 track digital, via
extensive patching and processing through a digital mixer.
It was a matter of necessity. Louis Armstrong recorded directly to shellac,
bypassing tape altogether. If someone goofed, they had to break it and start
all over again.. Ahh, those bygone days. A lot of great music would not have
been realized (think Headhunters, or Bitches Brew or On The Corner as early
examples) if recording techniques did not advance rapidly through the mid
'60's and onward.
>
> The difference is can be visualized by comparing an actually photographic
> print to a photographic reproduction in a magazine. If you look at a photo
> in a magazine it looks nice, but if you look very close you will see that
it
> is composed of a fine pattern of dots. This is a convienent way to fool
the
> eye just as a CD is a convienent way to fool the ear at 44.1 million
samples
> per second and for all due puposes its probably the best way for most
> people.
True, but 44.1 million samples is a *lot* of samples. The cool thing about
CD's is you can scratch 'em all to hell (like my U.F.O. discs) and they will
still play without any additional surface noise (or they won't much play at
all, in which case they make a pretty good non-lethal shaolin weapon.)
> This is because most producers, who know what they are doing and have the
> resources, use a DAT which has a greater dynamic range than a CD, a
higher
> sample rate 48mhz/sec (this small bit makes a difference) and sometimes a
> greater bit depth. Combine this better than CD quality with a solid
> knowledge of vinyl mastering and you get better sounding records.
This is not always true either. A digital source that is recorded at 48khz
has to be reduced to 44.1 to be played on a consumer CD. This means the
digital wordlength has to be "truncated" and this can actually be a bad
thing.
Mastering engineers use a process called "dither" to compensate for the
truncation. Dither is a fancy word for noise, and that's what it is, a
little puff of noise down there in the low db's. Many mastering engineers
advise their clients not to record at 48kHz, especially if they're going to
make their own CD's without access to esoteric dithering processes.
(Also, there has been a move afoot for quite a while to introduce 96kHz as
the CD standard. But then, everybody'd have to get new CD players, and the
fact is, the average guy or gal on the street can't tell the difference
between 44.1 kHz, 48K, or 96k, and doesn't much care.)
>
> The digital sound can also be fattened up by analogue processors that add
> harmonics and other bits before the final cutting to plate.
>
> As far as CD vs. Vinyl, DJs should utilize both, but there are still quite
a
> few establishments that don't have CD decks. I also find it difficult to
> weed through music in your CD collection during a dancefloor set without a
> bit of prep work (I would never show up at a lounge or my radioshow
without
> CDs!). Previewing through all of 12+ tracks and beat matching them seems
> more difficult in the distracting, sensory overload world of the Dj booth.
> There is just something very tactile, easy to organize and reasuring about
a
> 12" record with one tune to a side...;p
>
> Also try finding current DnB on CD!
>
> here is a cool, semi-technical article about vinyl mastering...
> check it
>
> http://www.acousticsounds.com/acoustic/acoustech/
> records.html
>
> peace
> Chris Widman
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 03 2001 - 02:52:45 CEST